This invention relates generally to the field of decoys, primarily for use in hunting. The decoys of the present invention are particularly suitable for waterfowl decoys, such as geese, ducks, mergansers and the like, but may be particularly constructed for virtually any type of game, e.g., sandhill cranes, "confidence" decoys, or even larger game such as deer and the like.
The need for and use of decoys to attract wild game, particularly waterfowl, is so old as to antedate even the invention of the shotgun itself. Native Americans, long prior to the arrival of the first Europeans, employed various means to imitate their intended prey, such as woven reeds generally shaped and colored similarly to the prey of interest. Early pioneers, with their better tools for carving, typically carved their decoys out of wood or, later, of cork. At various times various peoples have utilized actual feathers attached in various ways to differing body materials to further add realism to their artifacts. Although many of these earliest decoys were quite effective, in general they were highly labor intensive, so much so as to be prohibitively expensive in today's post-war economy.
Since the advent of mass manufacturing there has been a long felt need for a lightweight, durable, effective decoy inexpensive to manufacture. The requirement for decoys of light weight is particularly critical for waterfowl decoys, where hundreds of decoys prove more effective than tens of decoys, and thousands prove more effective still. Since it is not at all uncommon to have to pack hundreds of decoys for hundreds of yards across deep, rutted mud and/or marsh, the requirement for lightness of weight may be readily appreciated. Further, since such decoys are not typically handled with great care, and since the purchasers of such decoys demand that they last for more than one season, the need for durability is also apparent. And, of course, if the decoy is not realistic enough in appearance to be effective, regardless of how light and/or durable it may be, then it is of no use to the end users.
This long-standing need for lightweight, durable, effective but affordable decoys has given rise to a variety of approaches to fill this need. U.S. Pat. No. 4,062,141 to Shjeflo discloses a flexible bag--in essence, a stylized windsock shaped to resemble the resting body of a waterfowl. By the use of the term resting body is meant that the windsock or bag is flared outwardly from the opening so that the center portion resembles a waterfowl body with folded wings, and is tapered inwardly towards the rear to project the appearance of the tail of a waterfowl. A stake is shown projecting from the bottom of the opening so that the decoy may be affixed to ground, with the upper end of the stake supporting a molded head to further add to the element of realism. However, the inventor of the '141 patent did not contemplate a flexible yet self-supporting body for such a decoy, and so required a hoop member to be attached to the sides of the bag adjacent the opening in order to keep the bag open. With the decoy positioned such that the opening of the bag is oriented into the wind, the wind inflates the bag, thereby giving the body of the decoy a somewhat realistic appearance.
To an experienced hunter, the disadvantages of the '141 approach are both numerous and obvious. First--as is disclosed in the patent itself--the decoy of the '141 patent relies on the wind to create a life-like appearance. Simply stated, if no wind, no realism. In the absence of a sufficient wind to inflate the bag, the body of the decoy will droop down in a most unrealistic position, like a becalmed flag drooping around a flagpole, and will spook rather than attract the intended prey. Further, as virtually every hunter has experienced, even when the wind is blowing at a sufficient velocity to inflate the bag, it does not always blow out of the same direction for an entire day. When the wind changes direction, a windsock decoy with a fixed orientation becomes worse than useless: not only does the wind not inflate the bag, but it may well cause the flexible portion of the bag to flap vigorously in the wind, creating an even more unreal appearance and scaring off the intended prey at even greater distances. The patent teaches that the user may grasp and pivot the bag so that the opening in the bag faces the wind without having to remove the spike from the ground, but for even a small spread of only a few hundred decoys, such a feature is of little or no practical benefit. Further, the material needed for the hoop adds further weight to a bag of hundreds of decoys and adds further expense, as does the requirement that the hoop be attached to the opening of the bag. Should rain occur, the bag will droop listlessly.
A somewhat more sophisticated approach is that disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,172,506 to Tiley and Tiley. The Tiley decoy essentially adds a two-part stake, with one portion of the stake being fixed to the ground and the other portion being free to rotate around the fixed stake. However, like Shjeflo, the Tileys did not contemplate a flexible, self-supporting body, and the invention of the Tileys retained the rigid member to support the opening of the bag. While the device of the '506 patent will automatically adjust to variable wind direction, it otherwise suffers from the same defects as the device of the '141 patent. In addition, with the two stakes and associated means for supporting rotation, the weight of the Tiley decoy is considerably increased, perhaps even double that of the Shjeflo decoy.
Still a different approach is that of U.S. Pat. No. 4,972,620 to Boler. The Boler decoy essentially consists of a flat, monolithic, head-neck-body piece formed out of a stiff sheet of unspecified material. Various relief holes permit the body to be bent around into a shape somewhat resembling a real bird, with tension holding fasteners to secure the sections in place. Although the device cannot self-adjust for changes in wind direction, the claim is made that wind blowing into the "chest" of the decoy will cause a side-to-side wobble of the decoy, along with a limited up and down bobble of the head from wind blowing over the flat head; this wobble and bobble are said to impart life-like realism to the decoy. In view of the requisite stiffness of the head-neck-body sheet, however, this patent is of little relevance to the present invention.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,611,421 to Jacob is similar to Shjeflo in that a stiff head and neck piece is attached to a stake which supports a hoop supporting the opening of a flexible windsock or bag. Jacob appears to add little of interest to Shjeflo other than an interior support for the bag which prevents the bag or "body" from taking on an unnatural position with insufficient wind. Like Shjeflo and the other inventors, Jacob failed to contemplate a flexible yet self-supporting body.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,753,028 to Farmer discloses a specialized, formed plastic head-neck-stake piece to which may be attached a completely flexible, wind-inflatable body or a non-inflatable flexible sheet which can be flared away from the stake by the wind. Only the "body" embodiment would seem pertinent to the present invention, and this embodiment clearly requires a sufficient wind, oriented sufficiently parallel to the decoy, for inflation and support of the body. Clearly, Farmer neither discloses nor contemplates a flexible, self-supporting decoy body.
Other patents of interest include U.S. Pat. No. 4,651,457 to Nelson, Nelson and Williams and U.S. Pat. No. 5,144,764 to Peterson. Nelson also discloses a wind-filled, flexible body bag attached to a semi-rigid head and neck unit, but which in turn is supported by a stake in the manner of a wind vane. Like Farmer, Jacob and the other prior art known to applicant, Nelson neither discloses nor contemplates the use of a flexible, self-supporting decoy body. The Peterson patent discloses a decoy with flexible wings said to move by wind from a lower, "lift" position to an upper, "stall" position, thereby repeatedly flapping its wings somewhat like a live bird. However, Peterson discloses that both body and wings may be constructed of a completely flexible material such as Tyvek.TM., and Peterson relies on pairs of struts and steel cables to form the desired shape of the wings. Like the others, Peterson clearly fails to disclose or contemplate a flexible yet self-supporting decoy body.
Despite the apparent disadvantages of these crude devices--hundreds or which must be carried by end users for considerable distances under quite difficult situations--none of these inventors conceived the use of a flexible yet self-supporting decoy body to provide a lightweight, durable, effective and inexpensive decoy. It is thus apparent that this long felt need for such a decoy has remained unfulfilled up until the invention of the present invention, which not only overcomes the disadvantages of the prior art but does so more effectively and at lower cost.